Bangalore District Court
C P Rajappa Son And Co vs M N Properties on 17 January, 2025
1
CC No.4209/2024
KABC030159742020
IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Present: Sri. Maruthi.K B.A., LL.B.,
XXVII A.C.J.M Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 17th day of January 2025
C.C. NO.4209/2024
Complainant : M/s C.P.Rajappa Son & Co.,
No.5, Gowri Mansion,
M.R.R.Lane, S.J.P road,
Bengaluru-560002.
Rep by Sri.Anand,
Aged about 56 years
(Rep by Sri.Jayaraj & Associates,
Adv.)
V/s.
Accused : M/s M.N. Properties,
No.18, 1st Main Road,
Asha Lakshmi Layout,
Puttenahalli, J.P.Nagar,
6th Phase, Bengaluru-560078.
By its Proprietor,
Sri.Mallikarjun
(Reptd by Sri.B.G.V., Adv.,)
Offence : U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
2
CC No.4209/2024
Judgment Date : 17-01-2025
*****
JUDGMENT
The complainant company has filed complaint
U/Sec.200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the
Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:-
It is the case of the Complainant Company that
complainant is a registered firm carrying on business
and distributor of G.I.Pipes, PVC Pipes, RPVC pipes,
SWR, ASTML pipes, CPVC pipes and other allied
products. The accused is one of the customer of the
complainant and accused has placed orders for supply of
materials and in pursuance of the same, the complainant
has supplied materials on credit basis and the accused
has agreed to clear the amount within 15 days from the
date of supply. In the event if the credit period exceeds
15 days, the accused has agreed to pay the interest @
24% per annum on he delayed payment. Further the
accused has placed orders for supply of materials and
accordingly, the complainant has supplied the materials
3
CC No.4209/2024
on various occasions. Pursuant to the same, thecomplainant has raised credit invoices for supply of
materials. Accordingly, the accused has made payments
leaving the balance towards the transaction amounting
to Rs.2,03,561/- which admittedly exceeds the credit
facility. In order to settle the outstanding amount the
accused came forward to issue a cheque dated
08.08.2019 bearing No.889187 drawn on Kotak
Mahindra Bank.
3. Further complainant has brought to the notice of
the accused that the aforesaid cheque will be placed for
collection and requested the accused to keep sufficient
funds in the account for which he has agreed. In spite of
it the accused has not taken steps to keep sufficient
amount in his account to clear the aforesaid cheque.
Since the accused has not kept sufficient funds in the
account, the complainant’s banker has returned the
cheque with endorsement as “funds Insufficient” by its
endorsement dated 13.08.2019. Thereafter, the accused
has not come forward with proper reply or inclination to
settle the amount. This fact makes crystal clear that the
4
CC No.4209/2024
accused has no inclination to make the payment and the
intention on the part of accused is only to deprive the
legitimate amount due to the complainant. As such,
there is no option for the complainant, except to issue
the notice dated 29.08.2019. The said notice was
returned unserved even though the accused is residing in
the said address. Hence complainant filed the present
complaint.
4. Sworn statement of Authorized representative of
complainant company recorded as PW-1 and got marked
documents as Ex.P.1 to 29 and ordered summons to the
accused. The accused appeared through his advocate
and he enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation read
over to the accused and he pleaded the case of the
complainant as false. In view of the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court of India, in the case Indian Bank
Association & Ors V/s. Union of India & Ors, reported in (2014) 5
SCC 590, the sworn statement of the complainant is
treated as chief examination of the complainant. The
accused has filed application u/s 145(2) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act seeking permission for cross
5
CC No.4209/2024
examination of the complainant and allowed the same.
The Statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. In
the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused
has denied all the incriminating evidences appearing
against him. The counsel for the accused cross examined
PW-1 in fully. Then, the matter was posted for
Arguments.
5. Heard the arguments of the both counsels. Perused
the records.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the
cheques bearing No.889187 for a sum of
Rs.2,03,561/- dated:08.08.2019 drawn on
Karnataka Bank Ltd., JP Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bangalore issued by the accused has been
dishonored on the ground of “FUNDS
INSUFFICIENT” and the accused even after
receiving the intimation regarding the dishonor of
cheque failed to pay the cheque amount within
the stipulated period and thereby accused has
committed an offence punishable under Sec.138
of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as
under
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:
6
CC No.4209/2024
REASONS
8. Point No.1 : It is the case of the complainant
that, the complainant company is a registered firm
carrying on business in the name and style “C.P.Rajappa
son & Company” The complainant company is a
distributor of G.I pipes, PVC Pipes, RPVC pipes, SWR,
ASTML Pipes, CPVC pipes and other allied products. The
accused is one of the customer of the complainant
company carrying on business and in the course of
business the accused placed orders for supply of
materials and in pursuance of the same, the complainant
has supplied materials on credit basis and the accused
has agreed to clear the amount within 15 days from the
date of supply. Further in the event of credit period
exceeds 15 days, the accused has agreed to pay the
interest @ 24% per annum. Accordingly, complainant has
supplied the materials on various occasions and also
complainant raised credit invoices for supply of
materials. Accused has made payments leaving the
balance towards the transaction to Rs.2,03,561/- which
admittedly exceeds the credit facility. In order to settle
the outstanding amount the accused issued a cheque
7
CC No.4209/2024
dated 08-08-2019 bearing No.889187 for the sum of
Rs.2,03,561/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank. In
support of the transaction, Authorized Representative of
the complainant company got examined himself as PW-1
and produced Authorization letter as Ex.P1. Cheque and
signature of the accused on cheque as per Ex.P2 &
Ex.P2(a). Bank Endorsement as Ex.P3. Copy of notice
dated 29-08-2019 as Ex.P4. Postal receipt as Ex.P5.
Returned postal cover as Ex.P6. Copy of notice contained
in Ex.P6 postal cover as per Ex.P6(a). Ledger Account
Extracts as per Ex.P7 & 8. 8 ledger Account extracts are
marked as Ex.P9 to Ex.P16. 6 Tax invoices are marked
as Ex.P17 to 22. Income tax form is marked as Ex.P23.
Schedule No.8 Sundry Debtors as on 31-03-2021 is
marked as Ex.P24. Statement of profit and loss is
marked as Ex.P25. Schedule No.14 is marked as Ex.P26.
Statement of income is marked as Ex.P27. Schedule
No.14 is marked as Ex.P28. Certificate of u/s 65(B) of
Indian Evidence Act is marked as Ex.P29.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted
the arguments contending that the accused is the
8
CC No.4209/2024
customer of complainant to substantiate the same he has
produced the invoices as per Ex.P17 to 22 and also
produced Ex.P23 & 24 IT returns and out of
Rs.5,77,438/- accused has paid only part amount hence
the cheque was issued towards the discharge of said
liability. No reply was given to the legal notice nor paid
the amount due. Therefore, sought to convict the
accused and impose the double of the cheque amount.
10. Per contra, the counsel for the accused argued
that in order to secure the credit of goods blank cheques
were obtained by the complainant and also invoices
raised by the complainant are created. No documents are
produced to show the supply of goods from B’lore office.
The company of accused is only made as accused in this
case. It partners have not been arrayed as
parties/accused in this case. Partnership firm is to be
made as accused in this case but partnership firm was
not made as party in this case. Therefore, complainant
violated provision of section 141 of NI Act. The accused
has rebutted the non delivery of goods to him. Hence,
9
CC No.4209/2024
prayed to acquit the accused on these grounds and on the
other grounds urged at the time of arguments.
11. Now, on the basis of the materials available on
record, it is required to examine whether the complainant
has complied with the provisions of Section 138 of N.I Act
to get cause of action to file this complaint. The
complainant besides his oral testimony has relied on the
documents at Ex.P2 to 6(a) in support of his contentions.
Ex.P2 is the cheque alleged to have been issued by the
accused, Ex.P.3 is the Return memo issued by the Banker
of the accused with the endorsements “FUNDS
INSUFFICIENT”, Ex.P4 is the copy of legal notice issued
by the complainant, Ex.P5 is the postal receipt for having
sent the said notice to the accused and Ex.P6 is the
returned postal cover. Ex.P6(a) is copy of notice contained
in Ex.P6 postal cover. All these documents corroborate
the version of the complainant in his complaint as well as
affidavit in lieu of chief examination and more over these
documents are not at all disputed by the accused except
issuance of the cheques, which would be discussed in
detail later. Thus, complainant with the help of Ex.P.2
10
CC No.4209/2024
to 6(a) has conveniently proved to have complied the
provisions of Section 138 i.e. presentation of cheque
within the statutory period for encashment, issue of legal
notice within prescribed period to the Accused and filing
of complaint within limitation period as per section 142 of
the Act.
12. The second aspect of the case is whether the
accused has successfully rebutted the presumption
available in favour of the complainant with probable and
convincing evidences? It is well settled principle of law
that, once the cheque is admitted there will be a
statutory presumption in favour of the holder or holder
in due course U/Ss 118 and 139 of the Act. However, as
held by our Hon’ble Apex Court and the High Court in a
catena of decisions, the presumptions under the said
sections are in the nature of rebuttable presumptions
and hence, the accused can very well rebut the said
presumptions by leading reasonable and probable
defence. Let us examine the same on the basis of the
materials available on record.
11
CC No.4209/2024
13. In support of the case of the complainant the
Authorized Representative of the complainant company
got examined as PW-1 and produced certified copies of
Ledger extract as per Ex.P7 & 8, Certified copies of 8
ledger account extracts, Income tax acknowledgment
with audit report to show that the accused had
purchased materials and he is due to the complainant.
6 tax invoices as per Ex.P17 to 22 also got marked. On
perusal of the said tax invoices, it appears that since
March 2017 to June 2017 complainant had supplied the
materials to accused. Further ledger account extracts
shows the transaction from 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2024.
The final ledger extract Ex.P16 shows that, after
deducting the payment made by the accused there was
an outstanding balance of Rs.2,03,561/- as on
01-04-2023. In the course of cross examination of PW-1
by counsel for the accused and in his arguments
contended that the complainant has not supplied the
goods as per Ex.P17 to 22 and the said invoices are
created. The accused at the time of entering into the
business transaction with the complainant company in
12
CC No.4209/2024
the year 2017 issued the said cheque for security
purpose and the complainant misused the said cheque.
The accused is not liable to pay the cheque amount to
the complainant company. It may be mentioned that, on
behalf of accused neither in the cross examination of
PW-1 and in his arguments not disputed Ex.P2 cheque
and the signature thereon not belongs to the accused.
Though the accused contended that he had issued Ex.P2
cheque to the complainant for security purpose, but
issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant is not in
dispute. Therefore presumption U/sec 139 of the N.I.
Act raises in favour of the complainant that the accused
issued cheque to the complainant towards discharge of
any debt or liability. The burden shifts on the accused to
rebut the said presumption by raising probable defense.
It is pertinent to note that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the recent reportable judgment
dated:09/03/2021 passed in Crl.Appeal Nos. 292/2021
& 293/2021 in the case of Sumeti Vij V/s M/s
Paramount Tech Fab Industries held that the burden is
on the accused to prove that cheque not issued for
13
CC No.4209/2024
discharge of debt or liability. With this back ground let
me appreciate the evidence on record whether the
accused is able to rebut the presumption U/sec. 139 of
the N.I. Act available in favour of the complainant.
14. In the course of cross examination of PW-1, it was
suggested that ಆರೋಪಿ ಈ ಹಿಂದೆ ನಮ್ಮಿಂದ ಎಲ್ಲಾ
ಮಾಲುಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನಗದು
ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ತೀರಿಸಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . During the entire
course of cross examination of PW-1 on behalf of accused
contended that the accused has paid the entire amount
of the materials supplied by the complainant. Of course,
PW-1 specifically denied the said suggestion made on
behalf of the accused in this regard. The accused except
bare suggestion to PW-1 nothing is placed on record to
show that he has paid entire amount pertaining to the
materials supplied by the complainant. Absolutely there
is no evidence on record to show that the accused has
paid entire amount to the complainant as contended. If
he has made the payment by cash he might have
received the acknowledgment or receipt for the said
payment. But in order to prove the same has not
14
CC No.4209/2024
produced the said receipt. Therefore, the version of the
accused cannot be accepted.
15. In the course of cross examination of PW-1 by the
counsel for accused suggested that the signature of the
complainant company is there at Ex.P17 to 22 but
accused company signature is not there. The said
suggestion admitted by the accused. Though in the
course of cross examination of PW-1 it was elicited that
the invoices does not bear the seal and signature of
accused firm but it is pertinent to note that in the course
of cross examination of PW-1 on behalf of the accused
Except suggesting PW-1 that the accused did not owe any
amount to complainant and also paid entire amount by
cash, the accused has not denied the transaction and he
has not disputed ledger account extracts at Ex.P9 to 16.
Obtaining signature of accused person on the invoice or
delivery receipt is not necessarily a legal requirement, but
it can be beneficial in establishing evidence in a potential
dispute. A signed invoice or delivery receipt serves as
proof that the goods were delivered to the accused person.
However, it is important to note that lack of signature
15
CC No.4209/2024
does not invalidate the transaction. The absence of a
signature on the invoice or delivery receipt does not
necessarily invalidate the transaction or accused persons
liability. It can be proved by other means of evidence.
Except the suggestion that signature of accused not
obtained on tax invoices does not invalidate the supply of
goods by complainant to the accused. Therefore, the
arguments advanced by counsel for accused not tenable
in the eye of law.
16. Further, it is contended by the accused that,
alleged cheque Ex.P1 is issued as security to the
complainant and the same is misused by the
complainant. If the accused issued blank cheque to the
complainant and if there is no liability on the part of the
accused, he would have issued a stop payment
instructions to the bank or issued notice to the
complainant for return of cheque taken for alleged
security and he could have lodged complaint before
police for alleged utilization of cheque by the
complainant. The accused neither issued stop payments
instructions to the bank nor issued notice to the
16
CC No.4209/2024
complainant for the return of cheque. Since the accused
is a business man he knows the consequences of the
issuance of blank cheque. In action on the part of the
accused not issuing stop payment instructions and
notice to the complainant for return of the cheque leads
to draw an adverse interference against him. If really the
complainant taken the blank cheque at the initial stage
of the business from the accused and there was no
liability on the part of the accused, definitely the accused
would have issued stop payment instructions and also
issued notice to the complainant for return of the cheque
and he would not have kept quite. Regarding issuance
of cheque, though the accused simply contended that
said cheque was issued in blank he has not stated as to
why the said cheque was issued in blank to the
complainant. More so, except making suggestions that,
the handwriting is in different ink no positive evidence
placed to disprove the same. It is to be noted that section
20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act states that if one
person signs and delivers to another, the paper stamp in
accordance with the law relating to Negotiable
17
CC No.4209/2024
Instruments either wholly blank or having written
thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby
gives prima-facie authority to the holder thereof to make
complete. The said provision empowers the holder of the
cheque to fill up the contents of cheque and present the
same to the bank. It is worth to note that, the accused
has not disputed the cheque does not belongs to him and
also no material has been placed by the accused to
disprove the transaction in question. Therefore, this
contention of the accused also holds no water.
17. Regarding the service of notice, it is stated by
the complainant that legal notice sent to the address of
the accused through RPAD was returned unserved with
the postal endorsement “door lock” as per Ex.P4.
However, during the course of PW-1, counsel for the
accused suggested that the notice sent to the accused
has not been served to him. Except the suggestion,
accused has not at all denied or disputed his address
shown in the postal receipt and postal cover Ex.P5 & 6.
Thus, it appears that the complainant had issued said
notice to the last known address of the accused. ‘When
18
CC No.4209/2024
the statutory notice is sent to the correct address of
the addressee, even if the same is returned unserved
on the grounds of either refusal or not claim or
absence of the addressee, the same amounts to
deemed service’ as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of M/S Indo Automobiles Vs. M/S. Jaidurga
Enterprises reported in 2008 (2) DCR 499 and also as
provided under Sec.27 of the Mysore general clauses Act,
1897. More over, the entire purpose of giving notice is to give
an opportunity to the drawer to pay the cheque amount
within 15 days and there by free himself from the penal
consequences of Sec.138 of the Act as observed by our
Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sri. Prakash @ Gnana
Prakash v/s Miss. T.S. Susheela reported in ILR 2012 KAR
4815. Thus, the legal notice is deemed to have been
served.
18. It is another contention of the accused that Ex.P2
was signed in the capacity of partner. Therefore,
partnership firm is to be made as accused in this case
but the complainant has failed to array partnership firm
as one of the accused in this case. Therefore, non
arraying of partner as one of the accused is the violation
19
CC No.4209/2024
of section 141 of NI Act. Therefore, contends that the
complaint is not maintainable on this ground hence
prays to dismiss the same.
19. Based on rival contention, Sec.141 of NI Act deals
about offences by companies. sub section 1 of sec. 141 of
NI Act 1881 states that if the person committing an
offence u/s 138 is a company, every person who, at the
time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and
was responsible to the company for the conduct of
business of the company, as well as the company, shall
be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable
to be proceed against and punished accordingly. This
court is much concerned about sub section 1 of sec. 141.
of NI Act 1881. Therefore, this court not going into the
question of proviso to sub section 1 of sec. 141 of NI Act
1881.
20. The meaning of word ‘person in charge’ has been
explained by Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Katta
Sujata Vs. fertilizer chem travencore ltd., reported in
(2002) 7 SCC 655 wherein it is held that for the purpose
of section 138 of NI Act, the expression ‘person in charge’
20
CC No.4209/2024
should mean that such a person should be in control of
all the day to day business or affairs of the company or
the firm as the case may be. If complaint does not
attribute any act done on his own or with connivance of
some other person of the company or firm which finally
lead to filing of complaint”.
21. Looking to the facts of the case in hand the
complainant has shown accused in cause title as follows.
M/s M.N.Properties, No.18, 1st Main road, Asha Lakshmi
layout, Puttenahalli, JP Nagar, 6th Phase, Bengaluru by
its proprietor Sri.Mallikarjun. On perusal of cause title of
complaint it discloses that the complainant has made
company of accused as accused in this case and the
company of accused was represented by its Proprietor
Mallikarjun. Whereas it is the contention of the accused
that the cheque was signed in the capacity of partner.
The partnership firm has to be arrayed as one of the
accused in this case. But the complainant failed to array
the firm as one of the accused in this case. Hence prays
to dismiss the complaint on this count.
21
CC No.4209/2024
22. In (2010) 3 SCC 330 in the case of National
small Industries Corporation Ltd., Vs.Harmeet Singh
paintal wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “it is
very clear from section 141 of the Act that what is
required is that the person who is sought to be made
vicariously liable for a criminal offence u/s 141 should
be, at the time the offence was committed, in charge of
and responsible to the company for the conduct of the
business of the company. Every person connected with
the company shall not fall within the ambit of provision.
Only those persons who were in charge of and
responsible for the conduct of business of the company
at the time of commission of the offence will be liable for
criminal action. If a Director of a company who was not
in charge of and was not responsible for the conduct of
the business of the company at the relevant time, will not
be liable for the criminal offence under the provisions.
The liability arises for being in charge of and responsible
for the conduct of the business of the company at the
relevant time when the offence was committed and not
on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in
22
CC No.4209/2024
the company”. Section 141 is a penal provision creating
vicarious liability and which, as per settled law, must be
strictly construed. It is therefore, not sufficient to make
a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the
Director(arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and
responsible to the company for the conduct of the
business of the company without anything more as to the
role of the Director. The complaint should spell out as to
how and in what manner the accused was in charge of or
was responsible for to the accused company for the
conduct of his business. A company though a legal
entity, can act only through its Board of Directors. The
settle position is that a Managing Director is prima facie
in charge of and responsible for the company’s business
and affairs and can be prosecuted for the offences by the
company. But insofar as other Directors are concerned,
they can be prosecuted only if they were in charge of and
responsible for the conduct of the business of the
company. Further held that a combined reading of
section 5 & 291 of the Companies Act 1956 with the
definition of that act show that the persons specified in
23
CC No.4209/2024
section 5 are considered to be the person who are
responsible to the company for the conduct of the
business of the company. But if the accused is not one of
the such person then merely by stating that he was in
charge of the business of the company or by stating that
he was in charge of day to day management of the
company, he cannot be made vicariously liable u/s 141
(1) of the Act.
23. In the present case in hand the complainant as
shown Mr.Mallikarjun as Proprietor of the company of
the accused that is M/s M N Properties. Therefore, it can
be construed that the complainant has made company as
accused in this case and the company was represented
by its proprietor Mallikarjun. The accused contended
that cheque was signed in the capacity of partner.
Therefore, without arraying partnership firm as one of
the accused the complaint is not maintainable. Except
the avernments in Ex.P2 that to only on the basis of seal
mentioned as partner, the accused has contended that it
is the partnership firm. If the company of the accused is
the partnership firm what prevented the accused to
24
CC No.4209/2024
produce the partnership deed to substantiate his
defence. Moreover the accused has not made any attempt
to disclose who are all partners of the alleged partnership
firm. In (2019)3 SCC 797 in the case of Himashu
Vs.B.Shivamurthy it is held that without making
company as party, the complaint is not maintainable”.
But in the present case in hand it is vice versa therefore
merely on the ground that the person in charge of the
company was not as arrayed as one of the accused is not
the ground to dismiss the complaint. Since a company
does not have physical body, in the event of conviction
the Hon’ble Apex court has held that there is no hurdle
for recovery of fine covered by the sentence even from a
sick company. In 2012 AIR SCW 1098 in the case of CBI
Vs.Blue sky tie up Pvt.Ltd., it is held that while imposing
substantial sentence court can impose fine on the
corporate body besides punishing the officer in charge of
the affairs of the company.
24. The material placed on record by the
complainant company discloses that the complainant
company has complied the mandatory requirements of
25
CC No.4209/2024
section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accused
has not chosen to lead his defence to disprove the case of
the complainant and also failed to rebut the presumption
as contemplated U/sec 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act
by placing acceptable evidence. Accordingly, I answer the
Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
25. POINT NO.2 :- In view of my findings to the
Points No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
In exercise of power conferred U/sec.
255(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the
accused is convicted for the offence
punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act and sentenced
to pay fine of Rs.2,20,000/-.
Out of the fine amount Rs.2,15,000/- shall
be paid to the complainant as compensation as
contemplated U/sec. 357(1)(b) of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the remaining fine
amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the state
towards defraying expenses.
Office is hereby directed to supply free copy
of judgment to accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then
pronounced in open court by me on this the 17th day of January, 2025)
Digitally signed
MARUTHI by MARUTHI K
Date:
K 2025.01.23
12:57:04 +0530
(Maruthi.K)
XXVII A.C.J.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW1 : Sri.Ananda
26
CC No.4209/2024
Documents marked on behalf of the complainant
Ex.P1 : Authorization letter
Ex.P2 : Cheque
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P3 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P4 : Copy of notice dated 29.08.2019
Ex.P5 : Postal receipt
Ex.P6 : Returned postal covers
Ex.P6(a) : Copy of notice contained in Ex.P6
postal cover
Ex.P7 & 8 : Ledger Account extracts
Ex.P9 to 16 : 8 Ledger extracts
Ex.P17 to 22 : 6 Tax invoices
Ex.P23 : Income tax form
Ex.P24 : Schedule No.8 Sundry Debtors
as on 31.03.2021
Ex.P25 : Statement of profit and loss
Ex.P26 : Schedule No.14
Ex.P27 : Statement of Income
Ex.P28 : Schedule No.14
Ex.P29 : Certificate of u/s 65(B) of
Indian Evidence ActWitnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
-NIL-
Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-NIL-
Digitally signed
MARUTHI by MARUTHI K
K Date: 2025.01.23
12:56:58 +0530
XXVII A.C.J.M
Bengaluru.
[ad_1]
Source link